Delhi District Court
Sh. Sunil Kumar vs Sh. Summat Prakash & Ors on 23 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL8, DELHI.
SUIT NO. 127/2010
SH. SUNIL KUMAR PLAINTIFF
VS.
SH. SUMMAT PRAKASH & ORS. DEFENDANTS
23.3.2011
ORDER
This order shall dispose the application of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 & 12 R/W Section 151 CPC dated 22.5.2008. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 to 4, in their written statement, have denied the existence of the suit property and have alleged that the suit property was put in a joint pool and was redistributed in a general repartition under Section 21 (1) of the Consolidation Act and defendant no. 9 had also denied the existence of the suit property and therefore, it would be appropriate if the defendants are directed to reveal the actual Khasra number, demarcation and repartition of the agricultural land and industrial & residential plot, if any, allotted to them, in lieu of the suit property and therefore, the interrogatories be Suit No. 127/2010 Page 1 of 6 served upon the defendant no. 1 to 4 and 9. It is prayed that the defendant no. 1 to 4 and 9 may also be directed to produce the documents in respect of the subsequently allotted industrial and residential plot, if any, in lieu of the suit property. 2 In reply, it has been stated by the defendant no. 1 to 4 that the suit property is an agricultural land and the same is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and it is for the plaintiff to produce the record of the suit property before this court. It is further stated that the plaintiff can seek required information from the concerned revenue authorities and therefore, the application has been filed only to harass the defendants.
3 Sh. M.K. Chaudhary Adv. for the plaintiff and Sh. S.P. Singh Adv. for defendant no. 9 and Sh. Arvind Rana Adv. for defendant no. 1 to 4 have addressed their arguments on the present application.
4 I have carefully gone through the case file and I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties. Perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction, wherein, it is stated that the suit property is an ancestral Suit No. 127/2010 Page 2 of 6 agricultural land and defendant no. 1 to 4 had allegedly purchased the suit property in collusion with other defendants and all the defendants have acted against the interest of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the ancestral property of the plaintiff and his brother has never been demarcated or partitioned and defendant no. 1 has dishonestly, malafidely and with ulterior motives preferred various transactions and have executed various documents in favour of various persons in connivance with Government officials.
5. In written statement, all these facts have been denied by the defendants, wherein, the defendants have stated that the suit property had already been sold by the plaintiff, his deceased brother Sh. Rajbir Singh and by defendant no. 6,7 & 8 through their attorney Sh. Anil Kumar, defendant no. 9 and vide sale deed dated 19.9.1995, the possession of the property was handed over to defendant no. 1 to 4 on 15.11.1995, in compliance of the orders of the Consolidation Officer in case no. M300/CO/9596. It is further stated that the suit property was put in joint pool and was redistributed in a general repartition under Section 21(1) of the Consolidation Act and the plaintiff was well aware about all these developments and transfer of possession and consolidation.
Suit No. 127/2010 Page 3 of 6
6. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in support of its contentions in case titled as "Sharda Dhir Vs. Ashok Kumar Makhija & Ors., reported as 99(2002) DLT 350", wherein, it has been held, as under: "9. This application was also opposed by the defendant alleging that the delay is not bonafide and the appeal should be dismissed.
The defendant no. 1 has filed a reply to this appeal and justified the order of the Joint Registrar.
I have given careful thought to the submission made by the Counsel for the parties at the Bar.
The application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1, CPC. This rule allowed the Court to grant leave to any of the party of the suit to deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite party relating to any matter in question in the suit. The object of this rule is that a party knows the nature of his opponent's case before hand in order to met it at the hearing. Indeed, he is not entitled to know the fact which constitute evidence to prove the opponent's case. The nature of the case of the parties is disclosed in their respective pleadings but in a given case, the pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties' case. In order to make good deficiency this rule has been enacted. It is now well settled that administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to shorten litigation. As a general rule, the interrogatory should be allowed, whether the answer to them would either strengthen the case of the party administering Suit No. 127/2010 Page 4 of 6 them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The court should not be hypertechnical at the stage of the service of the interrogatories. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Indeed, it cannot be used as a means of obtaining information which may be admissible during the oral cross examination of a party and his witnesses. Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely because the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question. One of the important purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission of material fact of a case. Under this rule, the interrogatories may be served with the leave of the Court by one party to the other in a suit: (1) to ascertain the nature of his opponent's case. The interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in the suit, indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible in oral cross examination of the witnesses. Rule 6 or Order 11 makes it further clear. It provides that objection to answer an interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bone fide for the purpose of the suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege, or on any other ground will be taken on the affidavit in answer. Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an order to answer them and any objection to answer can be taken under the Rule. The Court is required to decide whether the appellant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but it is not to determine what question should the opposite party be compelled to answer.
10. As observed above at the preliminary stage of hearing on the application the court is required to decide whether the applicant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but is not to determine what question should the opposite party be compelled to answer. Interrogatories may then be served on the other party for his Suit No. 127/2010 Page 5 of 6 answer to that on affidavit. The party, who has been served with interrogatories, will then answer the interrogatories on affidavit. The party, who has been served with interrogatories, will then answer the interrogatories on affidavit or raise objections about the relevancy or they being of scandalous nature, irrelevant, not bona fide, or not to be answered on the ground of privilege etc,, in answer. The Court then may consider and dispose of the interrogatories. It will not for the Court at this stage of granting leave to consider what particular questions the party interrogated should be compelled to answer. Proper time for considering that question is after the party interrogated has filed its affidavit in answer."
7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and the legal position, as discussed above, the present application is allowed and it is, hereby, directed that the defendant no. 1 to 4 & 9 shall submit the replies to the interrogatories, as mentioned in Annexure PIB, by way of a sworn affidavit and shall also submit the copies of the relevant documents if any, in this court, on or before the next date of hearing. The application is disposed off accordingly. Announced in the open court on this 23rd day of March, 2011.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:
CENTRAL8, DELHI.
N. Suit No. 127/2010 Page 6 of 6 SUIT No. 8/2009 04.03.2011 Present: None for the parties.
Separate exparte judgment has been passed, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,32,737/ alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum w.e.f. 6.9.2008 till its realisation. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADJ, CENTRAL8 DELHI/04.03.2011.
N. Suit No. 127/2010 Page 7 of 6